Here we have the story of a Fifthist apocalypse, and what finally resolves(?) it. Thanks to magnadeus, KindlyTurtleRock, SecretCrow, and Crow-Cat for critique. I'm aiming for Category three here, and I'd say there are aspects of all the cliches here, but the ones that take center stage are:

Spooky scary murder monster(s)!
A doorway of any shape to a different dimension/timeline/world.
A highly skilled Mobile Task Force gets steamrolled.
An interview in which the anomaly is overly cryptic, followed by the interviewer suffering.
(GoI/PoI here) gets one over the Foundation, making them look like fools in the process.

Less because there's no Bible, more because their minds are so twisted by the Cosmic Starfish that they can only remember certain things through a Fifthist connection, and they completely forget them otherwise.

I like how it ties nearly all the aspects of the Fifthtists into a somewhat comprehensible whole. In particular, I think this is the first time I've ever liked SCP-1982, and "my god, it's full of god!" is an excellent reference.

But the way you use the anafabula at the end of the tale doesn't make sense to me considering the original article. For starters, the Anafabula needs a number of references in the narrative layer above the one it's trying to eat to do so. It must be portrayed as some sort of antagonist that prevents the completition of the story, leaving it incomplete, but the story Fred creates in the documentation is very much complete. It also eats narratives, not objects, so it shouldn't have eaten first Fred, then the room, it should have eaten the first narrative it found (the fight), then the next one (the Fifth world trying to find Fred) and so on. The way it's written makes it sound like the Void Singularity rather than the Anafabula.

So yeah, novote because, while the first four parts are great, the climax is based on an interpretation of the Anafabula I think is inconsistent with the original article, or even the concept of it, when it starts eating objects rather than narratives.